Ŕ Periodica Polytechnica New Practical Approach to Plastic
Civil Engineering
Analysis of Steel Structures
Ehsan Dehghani, Sajad A. Hamidi, Fariborz M. Tehrani, Aastha Goyal, Rasoul
59(1), pp. 27–35, 2015 Mirghaderi
DOI: 10.3311/PPci.7578
Creative Commons Attribution
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Received 23-06-2014, revised 23-09-2014, accepted 01-12-2014
Abstract
The current practical methods for plastic analysis of steel
structures are mainly based on plastic hinge or modified plas-
tic hinge methods. These methods are simple and practical but
they have some drawbacks. The main weakness of these methods
is concentrating the nonlinear effects in one point and neglect-
ing the gradual yielding of the material. This research focuses
on the propagation effects of the plasticity in both section and
length of the element. The proposed methodology employs a
variable section in the plastic region of the element. The re-
sults of this method on selected practical cases are presented
and compared with the exact solutions as well as the results of
other methods. The comparison shows the proposed method to
be more accurate, and also easier and more efficient to imple-
ment.
Keywords
Plastic Analysis · Steel Structures · Gradual Yielding · Semi
Plastic Point
Ehsan Dehghani
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Qom, Boulevard Alghadir, Qom,
Iran
e-mail: dehghani@qom.ac.ir
Sajad A. Hamidi
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee, 3200 North Cramer St., Milwaukee, USA
e-mail: hamidi@uwm.edu
Fariborz M. Tehrani
Department of Civil and Geomatics Engineering, California State University,
5241 North Maple Ave, Fresno, CA 93740-0057, USA
e-mail: ftehrani@csufresno.edu
Aastha Goyal
Department of Civil and Geomatics Engineering, California State University,
5241 North Maple Ave, Fresno, CA 93740-0057, USA
e-mail: goyalaastha2@mail.fresnostate.edu
Rasoul Mirghaderi
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Enghelab Ave. Tehran,
Iran
e-mail: rmirghaderi@ut.ac.ir
New Practical Approach to Plastic Analysis of Steel Structures
1 Introduction
The nonlinear behavior of material is an important concept
in analysis and particularly in design of steel structures. The
nonlinear behavior of steel is linked to its ductile properties.
The transition from elastic to plastic state, and consequently
from plastic to strain hardening and necking state is not in-
stantaneous. Plastic hinge theory is discussed in the pioneer
work of Kazinczy [1]. These gradual transitions are path de-
pendent. The path is generally a function of the shape and size
of the cross-section and length of the member. Thus, the be-
havior of steel element is supposed to vary at every point along
its length or throughout its section area. General methods to
analyze these transition phases include plastic analysis, equilib-
rium, and kinematic methods. Simple plastic method refers to
step-by-step analysis of member’s elastic and plastic moments at
every increment until plastic hinges are formed. The equilibrium
method refers to determining plastic loads from moment dia-
grams, which are in equilibrium with externally applied loads.
The kinematic method refers to observing the plastic collapse
mechanism and obtaining the plastic load associated with that
mechanism. Detail discussions about the determination of the
deformations of elastoplastic and rigid-plastic structures, sub-
jected to different loadings and great number of bounding theo-
rems and methods, have been presented by Kaliszky [2].
Typical methods to consider the nonlinear behavior of struc-
tural elements are generally divided into two main categories:
plastic area method and plastic hinge method. In the first
method, the plastic area is assumed to propagate along the length
and across the section of the member. This method can be in-
corporated in finite element analysis, in which finer mesh leads
to better accuracy [3]. Although this method is accurate, it is
time-consuming and needs computers with high computational
capacities. Thus, it is not practical to use this type of analysis
in every-day engineering practice. In the second method, plastic
hinge, a hinge is activated in the section, where the applied mo-
ment reaches the plastic capacity of the section. Then, analysis
is carried forward with the presence of the hinge. This method
is very simple and popular, but at the same time it has some dis-
advantages. The plastic hinge is lumped at one point, while the
2015 59 1 27
plasticity is propagated along the length of the member. Thus,
semi-plastic regions are neglected in this method.
Different methods have been proposed in recent years to solve
this problem, including the modified plastic hinge method. In
this method, the gradual yielding of the material is addressed by
incorporating adjustment coefficients. These coefficients mod-
ify the stiffness matrix throughout the transition from elastic to
plastic behavior in the hinge area. This method is more accurate,
but the coefficients cannot be obtained from analytical methods.
Rather, these coefficients are determined by fitting analytical re-
sults over experimental results. For this reason, the method is
not universally applicable to all cases with different sections and
configurations.
Mamaghani, Usami, and Mizuno proposed a deflection anal-
ysis using finite element method. The inelastic large deflection
analysis of structural steel members, such as pin-ended columns
and beam-columns of strut type was examined. A multi-axial
two-surface plasticity model (2SM) was developed in this study
to determine the gradual plastification through the cross sec-
tion and along the member length [4]. The Bauschinger effect,
cyclic strain hardening, and residual stresses were produced dur-
ing development of hysteretic plastic deformations. An elastic-
to-plastic finite element formulation was used to find material
and geometrical nonlinearities. The 2SM model incorporates the
experimentally observed cyclic behavior of steel and describes
the decrease and disappearance of the yield plateau, reduction
of the elastic range and cyclic strain hardening. It also con-
siders the degradation of post-buckling compressive resistance,
deterioration of buckling load capacity in subsequent inelastic
cycles, and progressive degradation of stiffness during cycles
and plastic elongation in the column length. The predicted hys-
teretic behavior of structural steel members using this model was
found to be in better agreement with the experimental results, as
compared with other methods, i.e., the elastically perfect plastic
(EPP), isotropic hardening (IP) and kinematic hardening (KH).
Therefore, it was concluded that 2SM is quite promising to ac-
count for the material nonlinearity of steel members under cyclic
loading. However, the 2SM model does not take into account the
variability of material properties.
Another approach to analyze variability in behavior of steel
under loading is the second-order plastic hinge analysis [5]. In
this approach, the beam-column specimen was analyzed using a
formulation based on stability interpolating functions for trans-
verse displacements, as well as elastic coupling for axial, flex-
ural, and torsional displacements. This method is particularly
suitable for space frame structures in which the members are
slender and subjected to high axial forces. Plastic action un-
der cyclic loading is complex, as real materials initially experi-
ence strain hardening when the stress exceeds yield and may ex-
hibit the Bauschinger effect when the loading is reversed [6, 7].
The proposed method was shown to be accurate in capturing
the buckling load of columns with different end conditions us-
ing only one element per physical member. The plastic hinge
28 Per. Pol. Civil Eng. Ehsan Dehghani, Sajad A. Hamidi, Fariborz M. Tehrani, Aastha Goyal, Rasoul Mirghaderi
formulation allows plastic hinges to form at either the ends or
within the length of the element. A study of a six-story space
frame using a direct second-order plastic hinge analysis pro-
vided a better insight into the structural behavior up to the failure
point. This insight relied on the load–displacement characteris-
tic of the structure and the sequence of hinge formation in the
frame. The method was shows to be particularly useful for flex-
ible and non-symmetrical structures. It was noted that the ac-
curacy of plastic hinge analysis was reasonable only for special
cases, where the spread-of-plasticity is not significant and where
the material stress–stain law is essentially elastic–plastic. Thus,
this method was found to be suitable for slender space frame
structures only.
A second-order spread-of-plasticity analyses was developed
by Jiang, Chen, and Liew to analyze three-dimensional struc-
tures [8]. Spread-of-plasticity analyses refer to subdivision
of the element cross-sections into grids to monitor the path-
dependent nature of plasticity. This method is helpful in find-
ing the current stress, the current yield stress at the current level
of strain, and updates values at each increment of load. Fur-
ther, this method can be used to study the more complex be-
haviors that involve torsional-flexural buckling, local buckling,
and yielding under the combined action of compression and bi-
axial bending. A 20-storey 3-D building was analyzed using this
mixed element approach. The computational accuracy of results
was found to be 10% more than the one obtained from plastic
hinge analysis. It was concluded that the proposed method is
effective in analyzing the semi-plastic region of steel members
and could be applied to more complex steel-concrete composite
structures. However, the applicability of this method is limited
to the plastic points on grids, and does not apply to plastic points
between grids. Kaliszky and Logo optimized the plastic design
of bar structure considering the nonlinear behavior of the struc-
ture [9, 10].
Cocchetti and Maier proposed a plastic-hinge modeling us-
ing conventional finite element method for frames subjected to
monotonic loading. This method assumed the possible plastic
deformations in the member to be confined to some particu-
lar sections known as critical sections. The behavior of these
critical sections could be demonstrated by elastic-plastic piece-
wise-linear (PWL) models. These models relate the generalized
stresses describing bending moment and axial force to the gener-
alized strains describing rotation and axial elongation. Further,
these models describe the transition from non-holonomic (path-
dependent and irreversible) to holonomic region, which help in
the formulation of a combination of limit and deformation anal-
yses. These results can be further used to evaluate possible bi-
furcations and instability thresholds. The conclusion stated that
despite these advantages, the PWL modeling has some disad-
vantages, such as tedious and time consuming computation pro-
cess, and large number of variables involved in the modeling due
to multiplicity of yield models. Further, the plastic deformations
depend on variability of material, shape, size, and length of the
member at every point, thus, it can’t be confined to some par-
ticular sections only. Therefore, the modeling assumption for
these analyses needs to be revised [11]. Kaliszky presents so-
lution methods for elastoplastic and shakedown analysis of lin-
early elastic, perfectly plastic bodies [12].
Thai and Kim considered an element with elastic segment
in the middle and two plastic segments in two ends. The two
end-segments of the element were consisted of series of fiber
elements. The stiffness matrix was reduced to 12 degrees of
freedom using static condensation. The results showed good ac-
curacy in comparison with ABAQUS analyses [13]. Kim and
Thai extended the numerical solution further to dynamic analy-
sis [14]. Kaliszky and Logo studied through the choice of appro-
priate parameters of force-deformation relationships, the classi-
cal principles of linearly elastic and perfectly plastic structures
can be obtained and the material and/or geometric nonlinearity,
post buckling behavior [15].
In this research, a new practical method for plastic analysis
of steel structures is proposed. This method considers the plas-
ticity propagation along the length of the member. The analysis
focuses on the gradual variations in geometry of steel members
during semi-plastic to plastic state. This study presents experi-
mental results of flexural testing on small-scale specimens and
analytical investigations using the proposed method. Further,
results have been compared with other analytical methods. The
area of the study in this research is limited to two dimensional
frames, but it has the capacity to be applied to three dimensional
frames as well.
2 Experimental studies
A circular steel rod with 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) diameters was
tested in a three-point-load configuration using universal test-
ing machine. The rod was loaded until failure. Fig. 1 shows
the load-displacement relationship and estimation of yield point
based on experimental values. This figure indicates how simpli-
fying assumptions are implemented on elastic-to-plastic transi-
tion to obtain an idealistic yield measure.
Fig. 1. Load-Displacement relationship of a solid rod subject to flexure
Fig. 2 provides comparisons between experimental and ana-
lytical results, in which stress and strain values are normalized
New Practical Approach to Plastic Analysis of Steel Structures
to yield stress and strain. This figure shows how conventional
analytical methods differ from experimental results. Both sim-
plified method present a sharp transition from elastic to plastic
state, while, the experimental transition is gradual.
Fig. 2. Normalized Strain-Stress Relationship of the flexural solid rod
3 Effects of plasticity propagation
Consider a steel element under an increasing flexural load-
ing, similar to the steel rod in experimental investigations. At
the beginning, the whole section is elastic until the load reaches
the yielding level. Then, the first point on the section along the
furthest fiber from the centroid yields (yield moment). Increas-
ing the load causes more points on the section and along the
member to yield until the whole section reaches the plastic be-
havior (plastic moment). A plastic hinge is formed when the
flexural resistance of the section gradually tends to zero. In sim-
plified methods of analysis, the transition part between yielding
moment and plastic moment is neglected. In other word, these
methods consider a fully elastic section before reaching com-
plete plastic behavior. This assumption is not correct as the re-
duction of the flexural stiffness of the section - from the first
yielding to the development of the plastic hinge - may lead to
redistribution of internal forces and change the response of the
structure to the loading in respect to safety and serviceability.
Thus, it is necessary to consider the propagation of the plasticity
in analysis to have a better understanding of the behavior of the
structure. In following sections, the effects of plasticity propa-
gation along section and length of a member are studied.
3.1 Propagation of plasticity over the section
To define the distribution of plasticity over the section, the
normal stresses in semi-plastic state must be determined in the
section. In elastic phase, the distribution of stress over the sec-
tion will be determined using section properties only, i.e., area,
moment of inertia, and location of the neutral axis, which will
remain constant and independent of the load. However, in the
semi-plastic region, the distribution of nonlinear stress is com-
pletely dependent to the shape of the cross section and the state
of the loading. Thus, it is not possible to propose a closed-form
solution to determine the stress distribution over the entire sec-
2015 59 1 29
tion. In this research, the section is modeled as a rigid plate on
an elastic bed in order to consider the propagation of plasticity.
This assumption facilitates determination of stress distribution
and plastic area subject to different loadings. Using this method,
the flexural stiffness of the section can be adjusted based on the
spread of the plastic area in the section.
Fig. 3 shows the reduction of flexural stiffness of selected sec-
tions subject to different axial loads. These graphs are normal-
ized to the elastic stiffness and the difference between plastic
and yield moments. The graphs in this figure show the reduc-
tion in flexural stiffness as the applied moment on the section is
increased. Further, the effect of normalized axial load, in respect
to yield load, on the flexural stiffness is shown.
Fig. 4 emphasizes on the increase of the effects of propaga-
tion of plasticity when the ratio of plastic to yielding moment in-
creases. According to this figure, the semi-plastic area is larger
for solid section than hallow ones. This is well presented for
the solid diamond section, in which the ratio between M p and
My reaches two, and the semi-plastic area is larger than elastic
area in interaction graphs. In comparison, the plastic-to-yield
moment ratio for the I-section is substantially smaller. Further,
Fig. 4 reveals that the behavior of a solid rectangular section is
similar to a diamond hallow section. This means a hollow di-
amond section can be a good substitute for a solid rectangular
section based on similar elasto-plastic behavior.

3.2 Propagation of plasticity along the length of member

Although current simplified methods consider plasticity pro-
cess to occur in one point, known as plastic hinge, the plasticity
propagates along the length of member as well as the cross sec-
tion. The length of the plastic area is correlated with the distance
from the full plastic section to the elastic section with one yield-
ing fiber at the furthest points from the neutral axis. Finding
these two sections requires finding two axial forces and bend-
ing moments along the member which correspond to the above
mentioned conditions. The length of plastic area in a member
Fig. 3. Stiffness reductions in some steel sections
depends on section shape, moment distribution along the beam,
and axial loading on the beam. The two later parameters are
themselves related to external loading and stiffness distribution
of structure.
By increase in loading, furthest point of a section reaches
yielding and the plasticity propagates along the length of the
member. This means that the stiffness and modulus of elasticity
are reduced in this area and eventually tends to zero in perfect
plastic state. Thus, the original cross-section will be changed to
a variable cross-section over the semi-plastic part of the member
which has variable stiffness from one end (elastic) to the other
end (semi- or fully-plastic). Fig. 5 shows this process.
Calculation of the stiffness matrix of the element requires the
stiffness of the end section, length of the plastic area, and the rate
of stiffness reduction. The first two parameters can be obtained
Fig. 4. Normalized stiffness reduction graphs for different sections
based on section properties and loading diagrams. The reduction
rate is calculated using stiffness reduction diagrams, similar to

30 Per. Pol. Civil Eng. Ehsan Dehghani, Sajad A. Hamidi, Fariborz M. Tehrani, Aastha Goyal, Rasoul Mirghaderi
 to K22 can be obtained from following equations:

4n − 3n2 − 1 + 2n2 ln n
K11 = (2)
−2n + nln n+ ln n + 2

−4n + n2 + 3 + 2 ln n
K22 = (3)
−2n + nln n + ln n + 2

n2 − 1 + 2n ln n
K12 = K21 = (4)
−2n + nln n + ln n + 2
In these equations, n is the ratio of the stiffness in semi-
plastic section to the stiffness of a fully-plastic section. Using
the second-order functions for stiffness reduction, following al-
ternative equations can be proposed to calculate the elements of
the stiffness matrix:

Fig. 5. Modeling of semi-plastic area with a variable cross-section along the K11 = −2.099n4 + 5.503n3 − 4.852n2 + 5.664n + 0.074 (5)
element

those shown in Figs. 3 and 4, when available. So, the availability K22 = −7.565n4 + 18.151n3 − 15.819n2 + 7.755n + 1.434 (6)
of stiffness reduction diagrams for various sections remains to be
a problem. Further, if the algorithm of the solution is designed to
have the exact stiffness reduction in each step, integration along
the length of variable element becomes necessary. Due to com- K12 = K21 = −3.855n4 + 9.406n3 − 8.488n2 + 4.746n + 0.17 (7)
plexity of the stiffness reduction functions, these integrations in-
It is important to notice the above equation with n equal to 0
crease the time and cost of the analysis. In this research, it is
and 1 are not precise. In these two conditions, the exact value
assumed that the behavior of the semi-plastic element is mainly
must be introduced to the program. If n is 1, the stiffness ma-
dependent on the stiffness of end section and length of plasticity
trix is calculated by elastic relations and there is no need to use
rather than the rate of reduction. Based on this assumption, two
the above equations. If n is zero, the value of K22 in linear
functions (linear and second-order) are considered for reduction
and second-order formulations will be 2 and 1.02, respectively.
of stiffness in stiffness matrix of the element. In following sec-
Other values of stiffness matrix will be zero when n is zero. To
tions it is shown these two different functions have no meaning-
avoid numerical problems in analysis of structure, these equa-
ful differences in results and the assumption is correct.
tions are substituted with above mentioned values, if n becomes
smaller than a tolerated value, say 10−3 .
3.3 Algorithm of practical plastic analysis
To use one element along each member, substructure tech-
Based on the previous discussions, an algorithm for analysis
nique is implemented for each semi-plastic element. This tech-
of the plastic area of a member is proposed. In this method,
nique allows a member to be modeled with one element only.
the plastic part of the member is substituted by an element with
When the first section reaches yielding moment, the program
variable section. The stiffness matrix for a variable section in
automatically adds a node and considers two elements as sub-
general can be written as:
structures to replace the original element. For this purpose,

 K11

K12  the stiffness matrix for both variable and elastic elements in the
K = (EI/L)   (1) member are calculated and assembled to form the member stiff-
K21 K22
ness matrix. The stiffness matrix is statically condensed based
In this stiffness matrix, K, the node 1 represents the semi-
on the end degrees of freedom. The algorithm of this technique
plastic section, and the node 2 represents the fully plastic sec-
is shown in Fig. 6. Further, the comparison between different
tion in the element. L is the length of plasticity and EI is the
practical inelastic analyses is shown in Fig. 7.
flexural stiffness of elastic section. Part of the element here has
constant stiffness and other part of the element has linearly var-
4 Results
ied stiffness. This means along the element there is not a unique
In this section, selected practical examples are analyzed using
stiffness condition. When we simplify the stiffness matrix the
different inelastic analysis methods. The results are compared to
variations of parameters will be non-linear. If the reduction of
verify the accuracy of proposed method. The referenced analy-
stiffness is assumed to be a linear function, stiffness values K11
sis was performed using ANSYS, which is marked in following
graphs as the exact solution. The modified plastic hinge method

New Practical Approach to Plastic Analysis of Steel Structures 2015 59 1 31

 Fig. 6. Proposed algorithm for practical analysis of plastic area

Fig. 7. Comparison of proposed inelastic analysis with current methods

Fig. 8. Comparison of inelastic analysis for a cantilever beam with I-Shape section

32 Per. Pol. Civil Eng. Ehsan Dehghani, Sajad A. Hamidi, Fariborz M. Tehrani, Aastha Goyal, Rasoul Mirghaderi
 Fig. 9. Comparison of inelastic analysis for a cantilever beam with rectangular section

Fig. 10. Comparison of inelastic analysis for a fix ended beam with rectangular section

Fig. 11. Comparison of inelastic analysis for a fix ended beam with rectangular section

New Practical Approach to Plastic Analysis of Steel Structures 2015 59 1 33

 Fig. 12. Comparison of inelastic analysis for a frame with rectangular section
is carried based on the proposed method by Chen and Kim [16].
The result of simple plastic hinge method, which doesn’t con-
sider the propagation effects of plasticity, is also shown for com-
parison. The proposed method is considered with two different
stiffness reduction functions (linear and second-order) to deter-
mine the sensitivity of the results to the type of implemented
function. As discussed earlier, the effects of plasticity propaga-
tion are better manifested in behavior of solid sections rather
than hollow sections. Thus, the comparative analysis is per-
formed on rectangular beam (0.1 m by 0.3 m) and column (0.2 m
by 0.3 m) sections. An I-shape section (HEA340) is also ana-
lyzed for comparison.
Figs. 8 and 9 provides comparison of results for a typical can-
tilever beam. Fig. 8 shows that proposed method fits the ANSYS
solution, without the necessity of time-consuming finite element
modeling and analysis. This figure also indicates that simple
hinge method does not deviate substantially from accurate re-
sults for an I-shaped section. However, this is not necessarily
correct for solid sections presented in Fig. 9. Comparison of
Figs. 8 and 9 indicates that the proposed method, disregarding
the reduction function type, is accurate for the analyzed beams
as results are closer to the exact solution in comparison to simple
and modified plastic hinge methods.
Figs. 10 and 11 show analysis results for a fixed-end beam
subjected to a transverse load. In this model, plastic hinges are
consecutively formed at A, B and C as shown in Fig. 11. As
shown in these figures, development of one hinge might occur
while the previously initiated hinge is still in progress, i.e. the
section is semi-plastic. Regardless, presented results confirm the
accuracy of proposed method using either linear or second-order
functions.
The advantages of proposed method can be presented in anal-
ysis of a complete frame subjected to lateral loading. The pro-
gressive nature of failure in a simple frame, as shown in Fig. 12
justifies the application of proposed method instead of simpli-
fied methods. Fig. 12 clearly indicates that simplified methods
34 Per. Pol. Civil Eng. Ehsan Dehghani, Sajad A. Hamidi, Fariborz M. Tehrani, Aastha Goyal, Rasoul Mirghaderi
cannot accurately estimate the transition from elastic to plastic
states. This level of inaccuracy has an eminent impact on the
outcome of performance-based design approaches using weak-
beam-strong-column, in which the ductility of the system relies
on the appropriate prediction of progressive failure mechanism.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, the effects of plasticity propagation within the
section and along the length of the element are investigated. The
proposed methodology is based on formulation of a variable sec-
tion in the plastic part of the member. Selected practical exam-
ples are provided to compare the proposed method with existing
methods. Following results are attained:
• The propagation of plasticity is more important in sections
with higher ratio of plastic moment (M p ) to yielding moment
(My ). This applies to many solid and hollow sections. Thus,
incorporating semi-plastic formulations in analysis of struc-
tures containing such sections is essential.
• Simplified approximate methods might be appropriate for
structures with single-hinge mechanisms. However, develop-
ment of multiple hinges at the same time in a structure causes
accumulation of errors due to these approximations and re-
duces the accuracty of analysis.
• The effect of plasticity propagation is less intense for I-shape
sections than rectangular sections. Thus, the errors from sim-
plified methods might be tolerable this type of sections.
• The proposed method in this research is more accurate than
other practical inelastic analysis methods. Further, this
method is easier and more practical than finite element meth-
ods.
• The proposed method is an explicit method, and thus, it is eas-
ier to be implemented in presence of other nonlinear effects
caused by loadings or material characteristics.
 Further research is possible to extend the application of pro-
posed methods to three-dimensional structures. Further, imple-
mentation of unloading and residual stresses can be incorporated
in these analyses.

References
1 Kazinczy G, Experiments in fixed-end beams, Betonszemle, 2, (1914), 68.
2 Kaliszky S, Plasticity–theory and engineering applications, Elsevier; Ams-
terdam, 1989.
3 Liew J Y R, White D W, Chen W F, Second-order refined plastic hinge
analysis for frame design: Part I, Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(11),
(1993), 3196-3216, DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445.
4 Mamaghani I H P, Usami T, Mizuno E, Inelastic large deflection analy-
sis of structural steel members under cyclic loading, Engineering Structures,
18(9), (2000), 659-668, DOI 10.1016/0141-0296(96)00204-0.
5 Liew J Y R, Chen H, Shanmugam N E, Chen W F, Improved nonlin-
ear plastic hinge analysis of space frame structures, Engineering Structures,
22(10), (2000), 1324-1338, DOI 10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00041-4.
6 Hamidi S A, Danshjoo F, Determination of impact factor for steel railway
bridges considering simultaneous effects of vehicle speed and axle distance
to span length ratio, Engineering Structures, 32(5), (2010), 1369-1376, DOI
10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.015.
7 Muscat M, Mackenzie D, Hamilton R, Evaluating shakedown under pro-
portional loading by non-linear static analysis, Computers & Structures,
81(17), (2003), 1727-1737, DOI 10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00181-0.
8 Jiang X M, Chen H, Liew J Y R, Spread-of-plasticity analysis of three-
dimensional steel frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58(2),
(2002), 193-212, DOI 10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00041-4.
9 Kaliszky S, Logo J, Optimal plastic limit and shake-down design of bar
structures with constraints on plastic deformation, Engineering Structures,
19(1), (1997), 19-27, DOI 10.1016/S0141-296(96)00066-1.
10 Kaliszky S, Logo J, Optimal strengthening of elasto-plastic trusses with
plastic deformation and stability constraints, Structural optimization, 18(4),
(1999), 296-299.
11 Cocchetti G, Maier G, Elastic–plastic and limit-state analyses of frames
with softening plastic-hinge models by mathematical programming, Inter-
national Jornal of Solids and Structures, 40(25), (2003), 7219-7244, DOI
10.1016/S0020-7683(03)00363-9.
12 Kaliszky S, Elastoplastic Analysis with Limited Plastic-Deformations and
Displacements, Mechanics of Structures and Machines, 24(1), (1996), 39-50,
DOI 10.1016/S0020-7683(03)00363-9.
13 Thai H T, Kim S E, Practical advanced analysis software for nonlinear in-
elastic analysis of space steel structures, Advances in Engineering Software,
40(9), (2009), 786-797, DOI 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.02.001.
14 Kim S E, Thai H T, Second-order inelastic analysis of steel suspension
bridges, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 47(4), (2011), 351-359,
DOI 10.1016/j.finel.2010.12.007.
15 Kaliszky S, Logo J, Mixed Extremum Principles for the Analysis of Trusses
with Bilinear Force-Deformation Characteristics, Mechanics of Structures
and Machines, 22(4), (1994), 429-456, DOI 10.1080/08905459408905220.
16 Chen W F, Kim S E, Boca Raton, LRFD Steel Design Using Advanced
Analysis, CRC Press; FL, USA, 1997, ISBN 9780849374326.

New Practical Approach to Plastic Analysis of Steel Structures 2015 59 1 35